"....everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world: our faith. Who then overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." 1 John 5:3-5

Let me state this up front - the current system of progressive taxation represents a philosophy of discrimination that would, if it were applied to any other social strata, be abhorred and denounced as a relic of the past. Those who endorse such a system are guilty of a contradiction so grievous and obvious that one must question whether their approval is the result of blind ignorance or malicious intent. To forcibly confiscate wealth - and make no mistake, that is exactly what our current system does - from the citizenry in a manner that holds one citizen to a higher degree of responsibility than another, based solely upon economic success, is incompatible with a society who professes fairness and equality. True fairness, if that is the desired goal, exists in a system that holds each and every citizen, regardless of income, to the exact same standards and demands. Therefore, if one wishes to implement a system of taxation that promotes true fairness and equality across the economic spectrum, one is left only with what has commonly been called the â€œFlat Taxâ€, but could more accurately be called the â€œFair Taxâ€.

In order to truly discuss these matters one needs to closely examine the word â€œfairâ€ and its connotations and implications. What is it to be fair? How does it lend itself to matters of taxation and economic responsibility? The word itself implies the absence of favoritism or a preference in judgment, in other words, to be free from prejudice. To act in a fair manner would require one to evaluate others in exactly the same manner, regardless of external factors such as, in the case of our discussion, income, accumulated property, or wealth in a general sense.

Fairness can only exist, in its truest sense, when we disregard these artificial criteria against which the worth of a man is judged by material possessions and judge him against other men. In the end one must arrive at the conclusion that he is equal in his responsibilities through the virtue of his equality among men both before the law and his stature in society. Therefore to penalize a man based upon the property in his possession is no less loathsome than to penalize him for his race, religion, or political creed. Because of this glaring inconsistency, it can be accurately stated that those who advocate a system of progressive taxation ultimately endorse a system based upon discrimination and prejudice, a charge against which they will most assuredly recoil in the most vigorous manner.

This act of punitive discrimination lies at the heart of the matter, for it is the intent of the proponents of the existing tax structure to inflict economic injury on his fellow citizens by sheer virtue of his accumulated property and his potential. Is it not peculiar that these thieves (and they are justly so called) can so easily seek to do harm to another man based upon those most repugnant of human traits - envy, greed, and jealousy? This becomes all the more ridiculous and distasteful when, in the same breath they use to indict the prosperous, they seek to gain greater representation before the law for the practitioners of societiesâ€™ greatest wickedness such as the debasement of children, blatant thievery, or murder. This is discrimination in its essential form, and what makes it all the more odious is the fact that it is not only held up as a form of â€œsocial justiceâ€ by so many of the corrupt, but that it is enshrined in the binding laws of a nation that professes to be the model of tolerance and equality.

This is delusion on an epic level. Freedom and equality are guaranteed only through equal representation before the law and any abridgment of the individualâ€™s equality before other men results in the infringement upon his freedom. Governmentâ€™s sole responsibility lies in the act of protection of its citizenry. Whether it be the protection against the foreign antagonist or the protection of the rights of one citizen against infringement. In the case of the latter it is woefully derelict, for it actually engages in the systematic discrimination of one class of citizens for the reward of another class, undermining the rights of the penalized, and perpetuating an injustice that runs contrary to all that we hold dear.